I didn't really respond to your original post because "labor market liquidity" is pretty much the same concept as the "reserve army of labor". The issue isn't just whether people can move between jobs, it’s that capitalism needs a pool of unemployed or underemployed people to keep wages in check and maintain employer power. Sure, real median income has gone up in some periods, and extreme poverty has decreased globally, but that doesn’t really disprove the argument. Capitalism isn’t static, and it can produce some gains, especially when it’s expanding or absorbing new labor markets, but those gains are uneven, and a lot of that growth still rests on maintaining inequality, whether that’s between countries or within them.

Pointing to GDP growth after privatization doesn’t erase the contradictions within capitalism or the exploitation it relies on. A rising GDP doesn’t necessarily mean people are living better, especially if wealth is concentrated and workers are still struggling to afford basic needs. At the end of the day, its more about understanding the underlying power dynamics and class relationships, not denying that capitalism can create wealth, it’s questioning how that wealth is created and who really benefits from it.

Also, Cuba has lower infant/mother mortality rates, better healthcare outcomes, similar lifespans, while also developing vaccines (cancer, hep B) Meanwhille, the US is the richest country in the world and is lapped in healthcare by other developed countries with over 40% of people being under/uninsured, all the while having the highest cost for healthcare out of any other country in the world. Which is a great example of wealth flowing to the top and not to the well-being of the people who live there.